31 May 2012
Tinkler and another v Elliott [2012] EWHC 600 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 125 (May)
In order to succeed in an application to set aside judgment, a party had to satisfy the criteria in CPR r 39.3(5) (a) to (c) by showing that he acted promptly when he found out the court had exercised its power to enter judgment, that he had a good reason for not attending the trial, and that he had a reasonable prospect of success, namely, a defence which carried some degree of conviction. What was “prompt” depended on all the circumstances of the case, however the court had to be cautious in the flexibility it gave to the interpretation of promptness. Such an approach enabled the court to do justice in accordance with the overriding objective.
